Posted by Lou Pilder on March 6, 2008, at 13:08:40
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Toph's hypothesis-topohypo, posted by Toph on March 6, 2008, at 10:56:52
> Hi Lou,
>
> My hypothesis is just a hunch based on a combination of anecdotal evidence and sour grapes. I noticed when people started complaining about Bob's absence that posting (including mine) seemed to wane.
>
> As for the 3-post rule, well, I don't like rules in general. Ironically, I think this one originated out of a thread I started if my memory serves me. It seemed to be a response to general frustration after many other attempts to solve a problem failed. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this one was Bob responding to a public appeal. It's livable because it doesn't fundamentally prevent expression only frequency. Again, I'm not a fan of restrictions. I think most of us feel bad that this one was necessary.Toph,
You wrote,[...a hunch...response to general frustration...solve a problem...I think.. Dr bob responding to a public appeal...doesn't prevent expression...this one was necessary...]
Thank you for posting that it was a hunch.
I have a want for clarification and identification after reading your reply to me concerning the 3 consecutive post rule. Could you clarify and/or identify the following for me? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of what you are wanting to mean so that I could respond accordingly. If you could not post here the clarification and/or identification that I am requesting, could you post why you could not?
A. What criteria did you use to write [...seemed to be a response to a (general) {frustration}...] as to what to you constitutes the frustraion seemingly to being {general} and how you determine that a frustration exists and what the frustration entails? Along with any reply, could you use a number of members posting about one's posting more than 3 consecutive posts that could constitute a {general} fruatration?
B. In your posting here,[...solve a problem...] could you post here {what the problem was}?
C. In your posting here,[...I think that Dr. Bob was responding to a {public} appeal...], could you post here what the criteria was that you think Dr. Bob used for you to use the word {public}? And also, how many members wanted to {solve the problem} and as to that number, what is the criteria that could be used to render the appeal to be {public} and a {problem}?
D. In,[...doesn't fundamentally prevent expression...], could you post what you are wanting to mean by {expression}?? If you could, then I could respond further.
E. In,[...I think that most of us feel bad that this one was necessary...], could you post what your rationale is for concluding that [...this one was necessary if you are one of those that feel bad and if you are not one of those that feel bad if you think that the rule is necessary...] by including what could happen if there was not made the rule? If you could identify what you think could happen if ,let's say, I was allowed to post 4 consecutive posts, then I could have the opportunity to see any reasoning in the rule that you are using to post that there was the criteria of, at least some thinking that the rule is necessary, being necessary, and post a response to that reasoning here, for the TOS states that the rule was made, at least, so that members that Mr. Hsiung describes as [less-confident} are accomodated in some way by the rule.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:815979
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080204/msgs/816563.html